Feminists and the Destruction of the Family: Cultural Marxism at Play


Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

culture war

Feminists have always tried, until recently, to portray their twisted world-view as a means by which for women to achieve equality with men.  Of course, that was a lie.  In reality feminism is a part of an larger overall strategy that we know as Cultural Marxism.  Seeking to create a Marxist revolution by destroying the underpinnings of Western Culture, Cultural Marxists seek, among other things, to destroy the family unit.  As we know all too well, children raised in broken families have every disadvantage thrown their way, and are very susceptible to the type of government plantation/dependency promoted by the regressives.  One way to crush the family is to prevent women from staying home and being mothers.  Feminists recognized that early on, and made it a battle cry. 

Today’s young women are empowered to choose career, family, and all sorts of combinations of both. But the words of Steinem and other liberal feminists revealed what they believed about American women…

Steinem: “[Housewives] are dependent creatures who are still children…parasites.”

Simone de Beauvoir: “No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.”

Betty Friedan: “[Housewives] are mindless and thing-hungry…not people. [Housework] is peculiarly suited to the capacities of feeble-minded girls. [It] arrests their development at an infantile level, short of personal identity with an inevitably weak core of self…. [Housewives] are in as much danger as the millions who walked to their own death in the concentration camps. [The] conditions which destroyed the human identity of so many prisoners were not the torture and brutality, but conditions similar to those which destroy the identity of the American housewife.”

Steinem has never been a fan of women who didn’t think like her or buy in to her radical feminist political agenda. “Having someone who looks like us but thinks like them (meaning men) is worse than having no one at all.”

So much for tolerance—and the belief that women are individuals who should be free to think and make choices for themselves.(emphasis added)

To adherents of Cultural Marxism, like feminists, tolerance is nothing more than a term to be exploited.  They are the most intolerant of evils, and actively seek to force their will upon others.  Because, after all, you might not chose to go along with them.  In that event, force will be applied.  And, when they can wreck society doing it, and bring forth the Marxist nanny state, they win.


Christianity and Social Justice, a False Comparison Re-Revisited


Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

There has been, in my opinion, a monstrous perversion of Christian teachings.  In order to promote Marxism, a variety of of Christian organizations and denominations have been infiltrated and influenced to promote an anti-Christian message- “social (in)justice.”   Many evangelical groups and the Catholic Church support it as well.   Just take a moment to let that thought percolate.  Would Jesus support Marxism?  Would he support a system that is openly resistant to any God but the state?  Mind you that social justice is nothing more than Marxism renamed, so I have a difficult time accepting that Jesus will support it.  It is neither social, nor just; it is simply the screwing down of everyone, outside the ruling elite, to the same level of government dependency/.

What I do know is that the Bible encourages charity in both Old and New Testaments.  Here’s a random selection of verses.


Deuteronomy 15:7
If there is a poor man among your brothers in any of the towns of the land that the LORD your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward your poor brother.


Leviticus 25:35
‘If one of your countrymen becomes poor and is unable to support himself among you, help him as you would an alien or a temporary resident, so he can continue to live among you.

Psalm 37:25-26
I was young and now I am old, yet I have never seen the righteous forsaken or their children begging bread. They are always generous and lend freely; their children will be blessed.

Psalm 41:1-2
Blessed is he who has regard for the weak; the LORD delivers him in times of trouble. The LORD will protect him and preserve his life; he will bless him in the land and not surrender him to the desire of his foes.

Matthew 6:1-4
“Be careful not to do your ‘acts of righteousness’ before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven. “So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.


2 Corinthians 9:7
Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.

Colossians 3:12
Therefore, as God’s chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience.

1 Timothy 6:17-18
Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment. Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share.

I will openly admit that I am by no means a theologian.  But what I gather is that charity is to be something personal.  God clearly wants us to be kind to the less fortunate.  I also think that he wants is to do that ourselves.  Note the verses from Matthew and 2 Corinthians; they seem to suggest that not only should giving be an individual decision-without coercion, but is should also be done in an anonymous manner.  Additionally, charity not only improves the status of the poor, but improves the condition of the giver’s soul.  Basically, it is good for all, and pleasing to God.

Let’s contrast that with the concept of social justice.  Essentially, the government, an agent of force, will confiscate from some, and give it to others (after wasting the majority of it in DC).  That, and the way in which it is done usually creates more of the problem it was meant to alleviate.  In a spiritual sense, how does being legally robbed by the government improve your soul, or you as a person?  How does a confiscatory policy help you please your God?  Can giving be defined as charity if you have no choice?  I don’t recall Jesus holding a gun to someone’s head, but Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro and Che certainly did, and in millions of cases, their minions pulled the trigger.

To me, the answer is simple.  Government taxation is NOT charity.  It does nothing for the “giver,” and, as history shows, we spent a trillion dollars in the “War on Poverty,” and ended up with more poor people!  I guess our government purchased a trillion dollars worth of poverty. No one bothers to mention that in the war on poverty, poverty won.  And, in fact, the government’s efforts helped poverty win, and will continue to do so.

Was that what Jesus had in mind?

Go forth, and pay people to not work.  Penalize them for being married.  And pay the more for having babies outside of marriage.  And, if they try and work to feed themselves, penalize them so sharply that they will give up.  Oh, and make sure democrats control education so they’ll never learn enough to escape you.  Do these things, and you will achieve social justice!

I somehow doubt that this is what the Lord had in mind.


ObamaCare Damage: Men Forced to Buy Maternity Coverage


The primary reason that so many policies (15-16million in the individual market alone) are being canceled, and their “replacements” cost so much more is that the ObamaCare law, and it’s corresponding regulations, add so many requirements, that the current policies are not compliant.  Yesterday, we found one of those requirements-men are forced to purchase coverage for maternity care.  Right Scoop posted the video yesterday…

This is the one size fits all system that makes things fail. Men being forced to buy maternity coverage?


ObamaCare Damage: Nearly Half of NY Doctors Saying ‘Nyet Comrade” to ObamaCare



How long before the “so great that you have to be forced to enroll” applies to doctors?  It seems that the doctors out there are not feeling the love for ObamaCare, which means eventually, they’ll have to be punished for it.  Here is the current situation, via Doug Ross…

Ain’t central planning awesome?

New York doctors are treating ObamaCare like the plague, a new survey reveals.

A poll conducted by the New York State Medical Society finds that 44 percent of MDs said they are not participating in the nation’s new health-care plan.

…Only 23 percent of the 409 physicians queried said they’re taking patients who signed up through health exchanges.

“This is so poorly designed that a lot of doctors are afraid to participate,” said Dr. Sam Unterricht, president of the 29,000-member organization. “There’s a lot of resistance. Doctors don’t know what they’re going to get paid.”

…“Obama Care wants to start right away, but who see all these new patients???? Not me,” e-mailed one doc.

Another said, “I plan to retire if this disaster is implemented. This is a train wreck.”

“I refuse to participate in the exchange plans! I am completely opposed to this new law,” said a third respondent.

One doctor recycled the mantra used to attack addictions: “The solution is simple: Just say no.”

Now, instead of listening to doctors, who actually TREAT PATIENTS, the Obama administration will respond as governments do, they will eventually use force, citing the crisis of their own creation as the rationale.  Of course, ObamaCare really isn’t about treating patients-it’s about control.



Michigan Teacher Sues to be Freed From Union


I hope she realizes what she is getting in to.

Miriam Chanski, a teacher from Coopersville, Michigan, is suing to be freed from her union, the Michigan Education Association.  EAGNews has more…

Miriam Chanski, 24, attempted to drop out of the MEA teachers union this May after Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder approved legislation making Michigan a right-to-work state. But Chanski told WZZM television station the union responded with a letter two months later rejecting her request.

The MEA, like most teachers unions, only allows members a very small window of time to drop their memberships each year – for the MEA it’s the month of August – and requires specific paperwork to complete the request. Most teachers are unaware of the technical process, and Chanski is no exception.

Chanski is now embroiled in a legal battle to win her freedom from the MEA.

At least seven other Michigan teachers were also unaware of the union drop policy, and are also suing for their freedom.

The ridiculous rules are obviously designed to prevent members from leaving, but teachers unions also use other tactics to keep members in line.

“In September, the president of our union came into my classroom before school and told me she was aware I wanted to opt out of the union and asked if I had sent in another form in August,” Chanski told WZZM. “I told her I was unaware of another form to send in, I was unaware of the August dates, and she told me at that point if I had not sent in that form, I might have missed my chance to opt out of the union.”

The local union president then allegedly threatened to turn the teacher in to a collection agency and ruin her credit if she didn’t pay her union dues, Chanski told the television station.

Chanski said the bottom line is “I chose to opt out and it’s not being honored.”

Of course, according to the union, they are so great, that Chanski should be forced to stay.  They know what this suit means-if Chanski wins, the flood gates open, and teachers start leaving in larger and larger numbers.  If you recall, when Prop 10 passed in Wisconsin, people left public service unions en-masse, and entire school districts de-certified their unions.  I’m sure the MEA has seen that, and do not want their slaves, and their dues,  escaping.  So, I would image that they are going to make life uncomfortable for Chanski.  While education unions are not known for a ton of violence, they aren’t above making false complaints, sabotaging work, or whatever is needed to silence a wayward member.

In the end, these efforts work best when more people join.  The larger the movement, the easier it is to deal with the nonsense.


Michael Moore Goes Full Metal Moonbat Over Right to Work


Every now and again, a great example of moonbattery is seen.  Michael Moore had a reaction to the Michigan Right to Work Vote that raised the bar to “Full Metal Moonbattery.”  Let’s take a look at some of his tweets, via Red Alert Politics…

Right to work laws essentially prohibit unions from forcing employees who do not want to be union members to pay union dues in order to keep their jobs. It also stops businesses from requiring employees be part of a union as part of their employment agreement.
“This is all about taking care of the hard-working workers in Michigan, being pro-worker and giving them freedom to make choices,” Michigan’s Republican Gov. Rick Snyder said. “The goal isn’t to divide Michigan, it is to bring Michigan together.”

So, in other words, Moore is going to embrace freedom by forcing people to join a union, even if the use of such force is illegal?  Yes, because nothing says “freedom” or “rights” like force, right?

Wouldn’t that kinda  be like Democrats saying that they didn’t like the Emancipation Proclamation, so they were just going to force blacks to stay in the plantations anyway?  Come to think of it, they may have only changed the name of the plantation.

In the end, you get it.  To liberals, freedom is slavery.


List of Ways Government Can Now Control You After Obamatax Decisions


The real tragedy of the recent decision on Obamatax is not that it was upheld on the grounds that the government has the right to regulate commercial activity and thus can make people engage in commercial activity (a line of reasoning that I disagreed with but would see how the backwards folk out there would come to), but that it was upheld because the anything that might be considered a tax is always legal (or some such grounds- like clear thinking really matters any more in this political world). The door has been opened- to both Republicans and Democrats and Fascists and Socialists and Libertarians- for the government to now require you to buy any product or you pay a penalty and then the Supreme Court will find this legal by changing it into a tax.

HotAir has a good list of some of the actions that now are legal for our government to perform:

…The list is literally endless, because of the endless number of things ideologues can come up with. But these are some of the top tunes.

  1. Congress can force you to buy an electric car.
  2. Congress can force you to buy solar panels.
  3. Congress can force you to buy and install a remote-control thermostat for your home.
  4. Congress can force you to buy internet service.
  5. Congress can force you to buy particular kinds of food.
  6. Congress can force you to buy contraceptives for yourself.
  7. Congress can force you to buy biofuels, even if you don’t have any use for them.
  8. Congress can force you to donate to political causes and “charities.”
  9. Congress can force you to pay union dues.
  10. Congress can force you to buy the New York Times.
  11. Congress can force you to buy “green travel” packages.
  12. Congress can force you to buy a 3-bedroom, 2-bath townhome with a 1-car parking spot for your electric car.
  13. Congress can force you to pay for soccer, gymnastics, and ballet lessons for your children.
  14. Congress can force you to pay for a gym membership.
  15. Congress can force you to rent a 2-bedroom apartment with no parking space.Congress can force you to borrow money.
  16. Congress can force you to pay for a state-college education for your children, regardless of where or whether they actually attend college.
  17. Congress can force you to buy a goat.
  18. Congress can force you to hire people.
  19. Congress can force you to buy mass transit passes, whether you use mass transit or not.

The list could go on and on. After all, if fining people for not buying health insurance is the same thing as a “tax,” then fining them for not spending on other things is also a tax….

The only purpose of a tax is to raise revenue for the government so that it can perform its limited functions. A tax is not a means to coerce people into engaging in business or not engaging in business, nor is a tax a vehicle by which the government can force a free man to perform an action (buy a product) that he does not which to perform. The Supreme Court’s decision is bad because it gives legitimacy to the idea that we are not free men and women any more, merely slaves to the masters who run the state, and that the masters now have the power to make us do whatever they want to do.

The Obamatax decision killed liberty.

Original Post:  A Conservative Teacher


Richard Trumka Seems Awfully Confused About Freedom


AFL-CIO “Don,” Richard Trumka seems a tad bit confused as to what freedom actually means.  He wrote an op-ed for the huffpo that stretched reality to the breaking point.  Then again, he is a liberal.  Here is a quick excerpt, as well as my usual sarcastic take…

Let’s call this right-wing “freedom” catch phrase what it really is: a grossly political strategy to dupe the public, which holds the word “freedom” as something sacred.

This Independence Day, I say let’s go back to a truer use of the word “freedom.” Let’s start with President Franklin Roosevelt’s Four Freedoms: freedom of speech and expression, freedom of worship, freedom from want and freedom from fear. I would add the freedom to bargain collectively.

Those freedoms are under attack today. We all will pay a heavy price if we don’t stand up and fight for them.

OK then, let’s look at how the unions deal with “freedom of speech…”

You see, like all leftists, the freedom of speech means that you are only free to agree with them.  Disagree?  Well, that means some people are going to “convince” you to keep your freaking mouth shut.

And the freedom from fear can be exemplified by the following…

So, Trumka must mean that”freedom from fear” means that as long as you don’t disagree with the union bosses, you won’t get “taken out!” Of course, that is, until you lose your job.

And lastly, he would add the “right” to bargain collectively.  Because nothing says freedom like forcing people to join something against their will.  On top of that, that having that right also means that the union gets to take your money against your will, and give it to politicians that support the union bosses.  Then, those socialist politicians will regulate your job out of existence.  But don’t worry, the union bosses will still have their power and influence!

Yes, that’s freedom all right!